<strong>Why don't you back that up with examples rather than leaving it as a personal attack?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I personally attacked your statement. I'm sorry if I hurt your statement's feelings.
It's an ignorant statement because you equate the movement towards forced disarmament with the term "mob". I really shouldn't have to explain past that, but if you really need your hand held on this I'll be more than happy to spell it out for you.
You can't have an honest and civil outlook on those who disagree with you on this because your argument relies so heavily on emotions.
New:
There will be no unilateral attack. I expect to see you draft a proposal to send the leaders of all nations who go in against Iraq (if there isn't a UN mandate, which there will be IMO) to send them straight to the Hague.
<strong>Since the U.N. was officially established in 1945, there have been dozens of cases in which (fully sovereign) member states have attacked other (fully sovereign) member states, without asking the U.N. for any authorisation.
Good guys as well as bad guys still have the right to fight each other.
<strong>Now, I'm no legal expert for international treaties, conventions, or concordats. But if the U.S.A. is currently in any breach of any of its signed commitments, why don't you sue them on that caps locked court you mentioned?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sue them? Don't you think they have enough financial difficulties?
You can't have an honest and civil outlook on those who disagree with you on this because your argument relies so heavily on emotions. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Not without a valid reason. Sorry.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thanks New, for supporting my point. This pretty much sums up enough. Prior to 1945, we could have attacked anyone without having to worry about the Hague as groverat puts it.
Now we do.
So, being part of the U.N. does reduce our 'rights' as a nation.
Funny. I have it the opposite way. I thought those people were crazy when they left because they was sure to be used by the rulers. So to go away when the obvious happened is thumbs up to them.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
But they went in knowing they would be used by Saddam. They left, not when they were in fear of being used by Saddam, but when they thought they might actually be in danger. Giving them a thumbs up for running away from their convictions and standing up for their convictions only when it's safe and on camera seems strange.
[quote]Originally posted by Anders the White:
<strong>
The only thing worse position I would see myself in than dropping bombs on Baghdad would be protecting military installations for Saddam
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Since many of the civilian places the shield wanted to guard were beside/above/within military installations, your human-shield heroes were doing exactly that.
[quote]Originally posted by Anders the White:
<strong>
The best thing to do as a civilian in the west is 1) To back the franco-german proposal or (if you really wants to risk your life) 2) join a resistance group in Iraq. People did the same to fight fascism in Spain in the mid 30sand they were heroes in my book. </strong><hr></blockquote>
They would be little/no use to any resistance in Iraq as they would too busy running away. They people in Spain (and in any resistance movement)were willing to die and fight for their cause, these clowns can only parade, carry witty posters, ride their bikes, go on field trips to support Saddam and criticize Bush.
Ok, so let's start making up our list of war criminals:
United States, Britain, Spain, Italy, Poland, Israel, Bulgaria, Japan, Australia. Tell me if I'm leaving someone out, I'd hate to offend.
They will be tried in Belgium since they decided that they have universal jurisdiction and Iraq will be in charge of punishment since this is all very unfair to them.
<strong>Ok, so let's start making up our list of war criminals:
United States, Britain, Spain, Italy, Poland, Israel, Bulgaria, Japan, Australia. Tell me if I'm leaving someone out, I'd hate to offend. </strong><hr></blockquote>
So what you're saying is, rule by mob is OK? Or that when the number of offenders is high enough, you no longer care if they're breaking the law?
That is, Saddam is just one guy so we can get him. But, if all Texans started lynching again, it would be OK because there are so many Texans?
I hope you do realize that this is where your argument leads.
[quote]<strong>So what you're saying is, rule by mob is OK? Or that when the number of offenders is high enough, you no longer care if they're breaking the law?</strong><hr></blockquote>
All decisions made outside of the UN are "mob" action?
Your rhetoric is sad.
I think the UN needs to bring itself up before the War Crimes tribunal for the way they slaughter the Iraqi people as well.
To quote Maynard James Keenan of tool: "no one is innocent"
[quote]<strong>That is, Saddam is just one guy so we can get him. But, if all Texans started lynching again, it would be OK because there are so many Texans?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, that's what I'm saying. You are very clever.
>>>>>Clearly you've missed the entire point of my post (and I hate righteous attempts to nitpick little points).<<<<<
Quite so, quite so...
>>>>>The main assertion I was making (which you ignored) was that who ever I was originally replying to (can't recall right now)<<<<<
'Allo to you!
>>>>>was incorrect in the claim that Ford's policies effectively conceded Nixon's supposed 'victory'.<<<<<<
1973-Nixon resigns. Ford becomes President. Chevy Chase rejoices.
Later, while Ford is President, and the Democrats control the nation's purse strings, and after US troops are out of Viet Nam and the South Vietnamese are standing up for themselves (which is a suitable definition for victory) and by definition again, as a result of the Paris PEACE talks and the signing of the armistance, there was PEACE in Viet Nam and it was as much of a victory for the United States as the Korean War armistance was. Both nations existed free of the despicable horror known as Communist Domination.
Then, in what could be called Viet Nam War Part 2, the government of North Viet Nam broke its word (Didn't some goddamned scum bag, some sonofanillych say, "Promises are like piecrusts, they're made to be broken."?) The NVA swept out of the North (supplied by their brother Communists in USSR and PRC) and attacked. Under PRESIDENT FORD's neutered administration, the DEMOCRATIC House of Representatives and Senate Scored Big Political Points and refused to allocate funds to help the poor, damned South Vietnamese like we goddamned promised. We couldn't even supply air support.
So we did throw away a hard-won victory by listening to goddamned peace-niks. Rest assured, that we will not make that goddamned mistake again.
>>>>I was arguing that Nixon had in fact pulled out troops long before this<<<<<
Which, going on just the text of your post was difficult to discern.
>>>>>, which you post as claiming that I didn't know.<<<<<
Whatevah.
>>>>>Reading is fundamental.<<<<<
Scratch when it itches.
Screw the UN, Let the Conquest of Iraq begin!
Oh, btw, the best part, the very best part about the upcoming war is this:
No matter how many pages this thread grows to, no matter how many theads in support of Saddamn Hussein the peace-niks here in AI post, it won't, won't mind you, make a bit of difference. Saddamn will be dead or captured three hours after Operation Twin Towers kicks off.
To any US military personnel who wander in here:
You guys and gals just freakin' rock! If you're in -theater, then Kick some major ass, be careful, and get yourselves home quickly! You are America's heroes, no matter what your job, no matter what your rank! Godbless you wonderful men and women! Hoo-RAH!
No matter how many pages this thread grows to, no matter how many theads in support of Saddamn Hussein the peace-niks here in AI post, it won't, won't mind you, make a bit of difference. Saddamn will be dead or captured three hours after Operation Twin Towers kicks off. </strong><hr></blockquote>
No matter how quickly Saddam Hussein is captured or killed, no matter how few U.S. military lives are lost, no matter how many Iraqi civilians we save, there are more important things in life.
Edited for exhausted intemperate langauge ( ihaven't slept properly in weeks) Bunge, let's start over. I don't see the shields as defending democratic principles, you do. I agree they are using democratic principles and of course they should if they feel strongly about something, my point was thet they were not going to achieve much by going to a brutal dictatorship to defend democracy- which is probably why they're not staying. O.K. Hugs and kisses from London-Alex.
[ 03-04-2003: Message edited by: Alex London ]</p>
Comments
<strong>Why don't you back that up with examples rather than leaving it as a personal attack?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I personally attacked your statement. I'm sorry if I hurt your statement's feelings.
It's an ignorant statement because you equate the movement towards forced disarmament with the term "mob". I really shouldn't have to explain past that, but if you really need your hand held on this I'll be more than happy to spell it out for you.
You can't have an honest and civil outlook on those who disagree with you on this because your argument relies so heavily on emotions.
New:
There will be no unilateral attack. I expect to see you draft a proposal to send the leaders of all nations who go in against Iraq (if there isn't a UN mandate, which there will be IMO) to send them straight to the Hague.
<a href="http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/law/2003/0225guilty.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/law/2003/0225guilty.htm</a>;
<strong>Since the U.N. was officially established in 1945, there have been dozens of cases in which (fully sovereign) member states have attacked other (fully sovereign) member states, without asking the U.N. for any authorisation.
Good guys as well as bad guys still have the right to fight each other.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not without a valid reason. Sorry.
<strong>quick google search on public international law and iraq:</strong><hr></blockquote>
And another one. this is a PDF:
<a href="http://www.lcnp.org/global/IraqOpinion10.9.02.pdf"; target="_blank">http://www.lcnp.org/global/IraqOpinion10.9.02.pdf</a>;
<strong>Now, I'm no legal expert for international treaties, conventions, or concordats. But if the U.S.A. is currently in any breach of any of its signed commitments, why don't you sue them on that caps locked court you mentioned?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sue them? Don't you think they have enough financial difficulties?
<strong>
Answer the question or piss off.... </strong><hr></blockquote>
Why don't you just piss off first, then learn how to read the thread and gleam the answer for yourself if you're going to be a prick about it.
<strong>
You can't have an honest and civil outlook on those who disagree with you on this because your argument relies so heavily on emotions. </strong><hr></blockquote>
lol! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> lol!
<strong>
Not without a valid reason. Sorry.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thanks New, for supporting my point. This pretty much sums up enough. Prior to 1945, we could have attacked anyone without having to worry about the Hague as groverat puts it.
Now we do.
So, being part of the U.N. does reduce our 'rights' as a nation.
<strong>
Funny. I have it the opposite way. I thought those people were crazy when they left because they was sure to be used by the rulers. So to go away when the obvious happened is thumbs up to them.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
But they went in knowing they would be used by Saddam. They left, not when they were in fear of being used by Saddam, but when they thought they might actually be in danger. Giving them a thumbs up for running away from their convictions and standing up for their convictions only when it's safe and on camera seems strange.
[quote]Originally posted by Anders the White:
<strong>
The only thing worse position I would see myself in than dropping bombs on Baghdad would be protecting military installations for Saddam
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Since many of the civilian places the shield wanted to guard were beside/above/within military installations, your human-shield heroes were doing exactly that.
[quote]Originally posted by Anders the White:
<strong>
The best thing to do as a civilian in the west is 1) To back the franco-german proposal or (if you really wants to risk your life) 2) join a resistance group in Iraq. People did the same to fight fascism in Spain in the mid 30sand they were heroes in my book. </strong><hr></blockquote>
They would be little/no use to any resistance in Iraq as they would too busy running away. They people in Spain (and in any resistance movement)were willing to die and fight for their cause, these clowns can only parade, carry witty posters, ride their bikes, go on field trips to support Saddam and criticize Bush.
United States, Britain, Spain, Italy, Poland, Israel, Bulgaria, Japan, Australia. Tell me if I'm leaving someone out, I'd hate to offend.
They will be tried in Belgium since they decided that they have universal jurisdiction and Iraq will be in charge of punishment since this is all very unfair to them.
Good, glad we got that sorted out.
<strong>Ok, so let's start making up our list of war criminals:
United States, Britain, Spain, Italy, Poland, Israel, Bulgaria, Japan, Australia. Tell me if I'm leaving someone out, I'd hate to offend. </strong><hr></blockquote>
So what you're saying is, rule by mob is OK? Or that when the number of offenders is high enough, you no longer care if they're breaking the law?
That is, Saddam is just one guy so we can get him. But, if all Texans started lynching again, it would be OK because there are so many Texans?
I hope you do realize that this is where your argument leads.
<strong>
So what you're saying is, rule by mob is OK? Or that when the number of offenders is high enough, you no longer care if they're breaking the law?
That is, Saddam is just one guy so we can get him. But, if all Texans started lynching again, it would be OK because there are so many Texans?
I hope you do realize that this is where your argument leads.</strong><hr></blockquote>
...to international concensus outside of UN inaction?
All decisions made outside of the UN are "mob" action?
Your rhetoric is sad.
I think the UN needs to bring itself up before the War Crimes tribunal for the way they slaughter the Iraqi people as well.
To quote Maynard James Keenan of tool: "no one is innocent"
[quote]<strong>That is, Saddam is just one guy so we can get him. But, if all Texans started lynching again, it would be OK because there are so many Texans?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, that's what I'm saying. You are very clever.
<strong>Your rhetoric is sad.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Pray tell, how would you define a group willfully acting outside of the law?
The UN isn't the ultimate arbiter of world affairs. It is far more grey than that.
<strong>It is far more grey than that.
*aside*
I'd say things look more black than grey right now...
>>>>>Clearly you've missed the entire point of my post (and I hate righteous attempts to nitpick little points).<<<<<
Quite so, quite so...
>>>>>The main assertion I was making (which you ignored) was that who ever I was originally replying to (can't recall right now)<<<<<
'Allo to you!
>>>>>was incorrect in the claim that Ford's policies effectively conceded Nixon's supposed 'victory'.<<<<<<
1973-Nixon resigns. Ford becomes President. Chevy Chase rejoices.
Later, while Ford is President, and the Democrats control the nation's purse strings, and after US troops are out of Viet Nam and the South Vietnamese are standing up for themselves (which is a suitable definition for victory) and by definition again, as a result of the Paris PEACE talks and the signing of the armistance, there was PEACE in Viet Nam and it was as much of a victory for the United States as the Korean War armistance was. Both nations existed free of the despicable horror known as Communist Domination.
Then, in what could be called Viet Nam War Part 2, the government of North Viet Nam broke its word (Didn't some goddamned scum bag, some sonofanillych say, "Promises are like piecrusts, they're made to be broken."?) The NVA swept out of the North (supplied by their brother Communists in USSR and PRC) and attacked. Under PRESIDENT FORD's neutered administration, the DEMOCRATIC House of Representatives and Senate Scored Big Political Points and refused to allocate funds to help the poor, damned South Vietnamese like we goddamned promised. We couldn't even supply air support.
So we did throw away a hard-won victory by listening to goddamned peace-niks. Rest assured, that we will not make that goddamned mistake again.
>>>>I was arguing that Nixon had in fact pulled out troops long before this<<<<<
Which, going on just the text of your post was difficult to discern.
>>>>>, which you post as claiming that I didn't know.<<<<<
Whatevah.
>>>>>Reading is fundamental.<<<<<
Scratch when it itches.
Screw the UN, Let the Conquest of Iraq begin!
Oh, btw, the best part, the very best part about the upcoming war is this:
No matter how many pages this thread grows to, no matter how many theads in support of Saddamn
To any US military personnel who wander in here:
You guys and gals just freakin' rock! If you're in -theater, then Kick some major ass, be careful, and get yourselves home quickly! You are America's heroes, no matter what your job, no matter what your rank! Godbless you wonderful men and women! Hoo-RAH!
Aries 1B
Cheering on the Conquest of Iraq
[ 03-04-2003: Message edited by: Aries 1B ]</p>
<strong>I'd say things look more black than grey right now...
Yeah, it's been nothing but roses and cherries up to this point. Sorry to wake you from your dream, princess.
<strong>
No matter how many pages this thread grows to, no matter how many theads in support of Saddamn
No matter how quickly Saddam Hussein is captured or killed, no matter how few U.S. military lives are lost, no matter how many Iraqi civilians we save, there are more important things in life.
[ 03-04-2003: Message edited by: Alex London ]</p>